A. UNIQUENESS – BUSH’S RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE BASE IS CURRENTLY DRIVING HISTORY’S MOST SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN AIDS-RELATED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FLETCHER, STAFF WRITER – WASHINGTON POST, 6 [MICHAEL, “BUSH HAS QUIETLY TRIPLED AID TO AFRICA”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html]
President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa. The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest. "I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia,Egyptand Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.Beyond increasing aid toAfrica, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year.Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001."He should be known for increasing -- doubling development assistance and tripling it to Africa after a period in which U.S. development assistance was essentially flat for decades," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "He should be known for the largest single investment in AIDS and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government program ever." To many longtime Africa supporters, all of this is surprising for a president who is often criticized as lacking curiosity about much of the world and who heads a political party traditionally skeptical of the efficacy of foreign aid. But attacking African poverty has become a growing priority of some of the religious groups at the core of Bush's political base, and some lawmakers credit them with stoking the president's interest in the subject."The evangelical community raised the awareness of HIV and AIDS to the president," said Rep. Donald M. Payne (N.J.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. "When the Bush administration came in, HIV and AIDS were not an overwhelming priority. Now we have seen a total metamorphosis."
B. LINK – REPEALING THE PROSTITUTION LOYALTY OATH WOULD CAUSE A CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN KRANISH, STAFF WRITER – BOSTON GLOBE, 6 [MICHAEL, “RELIGIOUS RGHT WIELDS CLOUT SECULAR GROUPS LOSING FUNDING AMID PRESSURE”, lexis: 7/17/07] A centerpiece of the religious right's agenda for USAID is a law passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2003 that requires any US-based group receiving anti-AIDS funds to adopt a policy against prostitution. The law says funding cannot be given to any group "that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." Supporters said they hoped the legislation would "eradicate" prostitution and thus curtail the spread of AIDS. While few, if any, aid groups support prostitution, many expressed concern that the US policy was so broad and applied even to their private funds that it would obstruct their outreach to sex workers who are at high risk of transmitting the AIDS virus. In some countries, half of all prostitutes are infected with the AIDS virus, according to congressional testimony. As a result, USAID's leaders originally were sympathetic to groups that resisted the anti-prostitution pledge. The issue seemed to be resolved when the Justice Department advised USAID that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated free speech.But the decision set off a firestorm of protest from the religious right and its allies in Congress, after which Bush's Justice Department reversed itself. When USAID then started requiring the pledge, some major grant recipients refused to take it and suffered. The Brazilian government, which lost $40 million, said the pledge would undercut one of its most successful anti-AIDS strategies, persuading sex workers to use condoms or other measures to stop spreading the disease.
Chequer, the country's AIDS director, said its work with prostitutes is a major reason why Brazil's infection rate among young adults is only 1 percent. "We view sex workers as essential partners in our HIV prevention efforts," Chequer said. The US government disputed that the pledge would suspend the Brazilian AIDS program, but other funding recipients interpreted the pledge the same way as the Brazilians. American Jewish World Service, one of a handful of non-Christian faith-based groups to get US funds, received a single subgrant of $60,000 for AIDS work in Kenya, provided through the CARE program. The organization reluctantly agreed to sign the anti-prostitution pledge but quickly had second thoughts. The organization tries to stop the spread of AIDS by providing education opportunities for children of prostitutes, which can help mothers leave the brothels. Julia Greenberg, the group's international aid director, said she believes the anti prostitution pledge was designed to make grants more accessible to conservative Christian groups. She said her organization has not sought more funds "because of the politics involved." Some organizations that refused to sign the pledge have fought back. A company called DKT International says it lost US funds for a $60,000 AIDS program in Vietnam. DKT filed suit against the federal government, saying the pledge violated its First Amendment rights. A similar lawsuit was brought against USAID by several other groups, including Pathfinder International, a Boston-based humanitarian group, and an aid group founded by billionaire George Soros.
To some conservative faith-based leaders, however, the plaintiffs in both cases are symbolic of what's wrong with US policy. Soros financed groups opposing Bush's reelection. DKT is run by Philip D. Harvey, who operates a large mail-order pornography business that is separate from his anti-AIDS organization. But in both cases, judges sided with the plaintiffs, issuing restraining orders that prohibited USAID from enforcing the anti-prostitution pledge. Moreover, a judge in the Soros case declared that the Bush administration had altered its stance on the pledge due to political pressure. US District Judge Victor Marrero noted that Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, had written a May 19, 2005, letter to Bush blasting USAID for funding programs for prostitutes to attend "parties and games." The sponsor of the program mentioned in the letter said that it was a bingo-style program designed to educate prostitutes about AIDS. The judge found that the pressure had an immediate effect: By June 2005, the Justice Department had reversed its position on the constitutionality of the pledge, and USAID was requiring groups to sign it. "This shift in position coincided with pressure exerted upon USAID and the President," Marrero wrote. Enforcing the pledge would do "irreparable harm" to the aid groups' rights to free speech, Marrero said. The Bush administration appealed the decision in August.
C. IMPACT – THIS COLLAPSES THE COALITIONS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THIS BOOST IN AIDS ASSISTANCE, THE GLOBAL IMPACT IS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS BURKHALTER, DIRECTOR US POLICY AND AIDS CAMPAIGN – PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 4 [HOLLY, “THE POLITICS OF AIDS: ENGAGING CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS”, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, JAN/FEB] The future of U.S. global AIDS policywill be complicated, however, because the conservative groups interested in the issue havedifferent tactical prioritiesthan their liberal counterparts and the broader medical establishment. They havetraditionally been hostileto some important AIDS-prevention strategies such as comprehensive sex education and condom distribution, and they are much more enthusiastic than others about policies such as the promotion of abstinence.Now that the United States is finally stepping up its efforts to tackle the crisis, itwould be tragicif theirimpact were dissipatedbecause of ideological differences between constituencies that arevital to the struggleagainst AIDS. The time has come, therefore, for all interested in AIDS policy to unite behind a comprehensive strategy to combat the pandemic, one based on the most effective practices in both prevention and treatment. The tens, possiblyhundreds, of millions at riskdeserve no less.
FLETCHER, STAFF WRITER – WASHINGTON POST, 6 [MICHAEL, “BUSH HAS QUIETLY TRIPLED AID TO AFRICA”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html]
President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa. The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion. The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest. "I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States. Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year. Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001. "He should be known for increasing -- doubling development assistance and tripling it to Africa after a period in which U.S. development assistance was essentially flat for decades," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "He should be known for the largest single investment in AIDS and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government program ever." To many longtime Africa supporters, all of this is surprising for a president who is often criticized as lacking curiosity about much of the world and who heads a political party traditionally skeptical of the efficacy of foreign aid. But attacking African poverty has become a growing priority of some of the religious groups at the core of Bush's political base, and some lawmakers credit them with stoking the president's interest in the subject. "The evangelical community raised the awareness of HIV and AIDS to the president," said Rep. Donald M. Payne (N.J.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. "When the Bush administration came in, HIV and AIDS were not an overwhelming priority. Now we have seen a total metamorphosis."
B. LINK – REPEALING THE PROSTITUTION LOYALTY OATH WOULD CAUSE A CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
KRANISH, STAFF WRITER – BOSTON GLOBE, 6 [MICHAEL, “RELIGIOUS RGHT WIELDS CLOUT SECULAR GROUPS LOSING FUNDING AMID PRESSURE”, lexis: 7/17/07]
A centerpiece of the religious right's agenda for USAID is a law passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2003 that requires any US-based group receiving anti-AIDS funds to adopt a policy against prostitution. The law says funding cannot be given to any group "that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." Supporters said they hoped the legislation would "eradicate" prostitution and thus curtail the spread of AIDS. While few, if any, aid groups support prostitution, many expressed concern that the US policy was so broad and applied even to their private funds that it would obstruct their outreach to sex workers who are at high risk of transmitting the AIDS virus. In some countries, half of all prostitutes are infected with the AIDS virus, according to congressional testimony. As a result, USAID's leaders originally were sympathetic to groups that resisted the anti-prostitution pledge. The issue seemed to be resolved when the Justice Department advised USAID that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated free speech. But the decision set off a firestorm of protest from the religious right and its allies in Congress, after which Bush's Justice Department reversed itself. When USAID then started requiring the pledge, some major grant recipients refused to take it and suffered. The Brazilian government, which lost $40 million, said the pledge would undercut one of its most successful anti-AIDS strategies, persuading sex workers to use condoms or other measures to stop spreading the disease.
Chequer, the country's AIDS director, said its work with prostitutes is a major reason why Brazil's infection rate among young adults is only 1 percent. "We view sex workers as essential partners in our HIV prevention efforts," Chequer said. The US government disputed that the pledge would suspend the Brazilian AIDS program, but other funding recipients interpreted the pledge the same way as the Brazilians. American Jewish World Service, one of a handful of non-Christian faith-based groups to get US funds, received a single subgrant of $60,000 for AIDS work in Kenya, provided through the CARE program. The organization reluctantly agreed to sign the anti-prostitution pledge but quickly had second thoughts. The organization tries to stop the spread of AIDS by providing education opportunities for children of prostitutes, which can help mothers leave the brothels. Julia Greenberg, the group's international aid director, said she believes the anti prostitution pledge was designed to make grants more accessible to conservative Christian groups. She said her organization has not sought more funds "because of the politics involved." Some organizations that refused to sign the pledge have fought back. A company called DKT International says it lost US funds for a $60,000 AIDS program in Vietnam. DKT filed suit against the federal government, saying the pledge violated its First Amendment rights. A similar lawsuit was brought against USAID by several other groups, including Pathfinder International, a Boston-based humanitarian group, and an aid group founded by billionaire George Soros.
To some conservative faith-based leaders, however, the plaintiffs in both cases are symbolic of what's wrong with US policy. Soros financed groups opposing Bush's reelection. DKT is run by Philip D. Harvey, who operates a large mail-order pornography business that is separate from his anti-AIDS organization. But in both cases, judges sided with the plaintiffs, issuing restraining orders that prohibited USAID from enforcing the anti-prostitution pledge. Moreover, a judge in the Soros case declared that the Bush administration had altered its stance on the pledge due to political pressure. US District Judge Victor Marrero noted that Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, had written a May 19, 2005, letter to Bush blasting USAID for funding programs for prostitutes to attend "parties and games." The sponsor of the program mentioned in the letter said that it was a bingo-style program designed to educate prostitutes about AIDS. The judge found that the pressure had an immediate effect: By June 2005, the Justice Department had reversed its position on the constitutionality of the pledge, and USAID was requiring groups to sign it. "This shift in position coincided with pressure exerted upon USAID and the President," Marrero wrote. Enforcing the pledge would do "irreparable harm" to the aid groups' rights to free speech, Marrero said. The Bush administration appealed the decision in August.
C. IMPACT – THIS COLLAPSES THE COALITIONS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THIS BOOST IN AIDS ASSISTANCE, THE GLOBAL IMPACT IS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
BURKHALTER, DIRECTOR US POLICY AND AIDS CAMPAIGN – PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 4 [HOLLY, “THE POLITICS OF AIDS: ENGAGING CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS”, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, JAN/FEB]
The future of U.S. global AIDS policy will be complicated, however, because the conservative groups interested in the issue have different tactical priorities than their liberal counterparts and the broader medical establishment. They have traditionally been hostile to some important AIDS-prevention strategies such as comprehensive sex education and condom distribution, and they are much more enthusiastic than others about policies such as the promotion of abstinence. Now that the United States is finally stepping up its efforts to tackle the crisis, it would be tragic if their impact were dissipated because of ideological differences between constituencies that are vital to the struggle against AIDS. The time has come, therefore, for all interested in AIDS policy to unite behind a comprehensive strategy to combat the pandemic, one based on the most effective practices in both prevention and treatment. The tens, possibly hundreds, of millions at risk deserve no less.